The Sun. — London, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

- ELECTION COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) (From our Second Edition of last night.) HULL. Moses Cherry, one of the Barton voters, was objected to, ut the vote was retained, the identity not having been proved. Samuel Cairl, the person who has given evidence against the whole of the Barton voters, was next objected to, as having himself been treated. He stated, in cross examination, that he was not induced to give his vote in consequence of the en tertainment which he had received. Mr. HILDYARD submitted that this case was distinguishable fmm the others, inasmuch as here was the distinct oath of the voter that he was not influenced by any impoper motive in giving lie vote. The Committee struck off the vote. Richard Roward was then objected to as having been treated by. Mr. Ham mon d, b ut hav i ng been descr ib ed in the list as Richard Rowland, the Committee retained the vote without going through the case. Richard Tiplady was next objected to as having been treated. The evidence was slight and the vote was retained. Wm. M'.kllum was next objected to. Thomas Watson, Cooper, stated that on the day of polling the voter came to the shop where he was working, and offered him lOs. and after:, wards a sovereign to vote for James and Wilberforce. Wit ness refused to go for less than 30s. M'Allum said he could not give that without going to the Committee Room. They then went together intoßontulley-lane, and he waited until M' Allum came out of the room, and on the latter saying it we's all right, they drove off to the polling booth. On their T um, M'Allum gave witness a sovereign and a half. The arguments of Counsel bad not been brought to a con 'elusion when the Committee adjourned. WICKLOW. Mr, THESSIGER replied, but had not concluded his argument wben it was announced that the Speaker was at prayers, and the Committee adjourned to to-morrow morning. KINSALE. The Committee retained the vote of Farley. Mr. PoLLocc then proposed, on behalf of the sitting Member, to proceed with the objections against freemen. William Warren was objected to on the ground that he had been admitted to his freedom after the passing of the Reform Bill. The case had not been decided when the Committe ad. journed at four o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 9. The LORD • CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past Five o'clock. Messages from the House of Commons were brought up with several private Bills. SLAVERY. The Marquis of SCIaO presented petitions from the counties of Galway and Mayo for the abolition of negro ap prenticeship ; and a petition from 3,540 females of Montrose to the same effect. The Noble Marquis presented a num ber of similar petitions from different parts of the United kingdom, but he mentioned the names in so low a tone that it Was quite impossible to catch them. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented also a num ber of petitions on the same subject. Lord DENMAN, in presenting a petition from a place is Cornwall for the abolition of the apprenticeship system in the colonies, denied altogether the right of the Legislature to give up to the planters the labour of the negroes for any num ber of years.—( Cheers.) Lard ABINGER was surprised to hear his Noble and Learned Friend say something which amounted to an avowal that Ile considered an Act of Parliament to be illegal, and that if it were produced in the Court in which he presided, he would not act upon it. —( Hear.) Lord DENMAN did not deny the legality of any contract between the planters and the Government, but he did totally deny the power of Parliament to make any contract by which the labour of the negroes could be for six years appropriated to the planters or their mortgagees.--( Hear, hear. ) The Duke of WELLINGTON contended that there was a compact between the Imperial Legislature and the planters. The negroes were to be freed on the twofold condition that the country should give 20,000,0001. as compensation to the planters, and that, moreover, the negroes should give six years' labour in the character of apprentices. The Marquis of CLANIZICARDE insisted that it was utterly inconsistent with the spirit of English law to make slavery, in any form, part and parcel of that law. Lord DENMAN, in explanation, said that he feared, from all that he had lately read, that it was in contemplation to cmitinue slavery beyond the Ist of August, 1840. SPAIN. ---; . The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice that after the Recess, he would call the attention of the House to the unfortunate policy of her Majesty's Government in respect to Spain. CHURCH VESTRIES' BILL. The House then went into Committee upon the Church Vestries' Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW moved an amendment to the effect that the provisions of the Act should be extended to Ireland, which (after a few words from the Marquis of Clan ricarde and the Bishop of London), was agreed to. The Bill then passed through Committee, and was re ported. Several private Bills were then advanced a stage. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. In answer to the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord MELBOURNE said, that on We inesday he should move that the House, on its rising, should adjourn to Friday, the 27th inst. The House then adjourned. lIOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 9. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. The Leominster Improvement Bill was read a third time and passed. Several other Private Bills were advanced a stage, but it was quite impossible to catch their titles. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Gen. SHARPE pr. sented several petitions against further endowment to the Church of Scotland, but wo could not hear the names of the petitions. Lord JAMES STEWART also presented a number of pe titi ns to the same effect. Mr. CHARLES LUSHINGTON presented a petition to the same effect from the Young Men'S Voluntary Church Association of ErUnburc , h. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Lincoln, praying that the rights of persons holding Church property be respected in any measure which might be introduced for the settlement of the Church. Mr. MACLEOD presented petitions from Inverness, against additional endowment to the Church of Scotland. Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented petitions from places in Shropshire, praying for the immediate abolition of Negro apprenticeship. Mr. FRE SHFIELD brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions. Mr. BAINES presented a petition from the licensed vic tuallers of Leeds, praying for the establishment of bonded warehouses in inland towns. Mr. THORNEL EY presented a petition from the Compo sitors and Letter-press Printers of Wolverhampton, against the Copyright Bill at present before the House, which they stated was injurious to the public, and therefore prayed that the House would appoint a Committee to inquire into its probable tendency and effect, before they suffered it to pass into law. Mr. HOWARD presented a petition to the same effect from the Letter-press Printers of Carlisle. Mr. CURRY presented a petition from the county of Tyrone, praying for the renewal of the law regulating the Irish linen trade ; also a petition from Slewater town against the Bill for the relief of the Irish poor. Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from a place in the county of Derby, praying for the abolition of pluralities, ex cept in the case of very small adjoining livings. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Otley, praying that children between the age cf 9 and 18 years might be allowed to work 11 hours per day, for five days in the week, and 9 hours on the other day. Lord ELIOT presented a petition from Messrs George, the inventors of a steam war carriage, praying the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the merits of the invention. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the Manu facturers of Nottingham, in favour of the Bill which had been introduced by him for patterns and designs. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Lancashire, against the bastardy clause in the Poor-law Amendment Bill. The Noble Lord said that he would take that opprtunity of stating, with regard to the notice he had placed on the books for to-morrow, that having stated formerly that he was convinced that it would not be possible, with any good result, to appoint a Committee on controverted elections, with out it was supported by all sides; and having received a state ment from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that it was the opinion of the Government that it would be useless to agitate the question before a Committee, and that hey would give no sanction to it, he begged leave to withdraw his motion. On the motion of Mr. J. A. SMITH, the West India Docks Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted. Mr. O'CONNELL presented two petitions against Ser geant Talfourd's Copyright Bill. Mr. ELLIOT presented petitions from Howick and other places against further endowments to the Scotch Church : also one from the Moderator of the Presbytery of Kelso, against the proposed plan of providing additional funds for the Scotch Church. Mr. E. ELLICE jun. presented petitions from places in Fife, against further endowment to the Church of Scotland; also one praying for a uniform rate of postage, and one from Cupar for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr. C. BULLER had a petition to present signed by 5,000 of the inhabitants of the colony of New South Wales, praying for the establishment of a represents five system of Government in that country. There was no difference of opinion in the colony upon the pray er of this petition. There was no point to which he wished to call the attention of his Hon. Friend the under Secretary for the Colonies, because he had no doubt his Hon. Fri " d .. A ",u, l „.,,d Hess it on the attention of the Colonial Go inah parties agreed in praying that the proceeds fro • • o land m i g ht b e app li e d to the purposes ) • t ut the most important point on tt'V agWe was that the present Legislative Council 11,6. existing state of the colony, and that atm ent might be adopted. He believed ‘, t . t colon now amounted to more than al the white population of any of the West Indian colonies. Th question which he had to ask his Right Hon. Friend was, whether it was the intention of the Government to persevere in the measure which had been submitted to the House? Sir G. GREY said that the Hon. Member could hardly expect him to enter into any detail now with respect to the measure proposed to be introduced by Government. He could only say that the peculiar circumstances of this colony—circum stances arising from the sources of its wealth and the nature of its population—constituted difficulties in the way ofa representative Government, which did not exist in any ether colony. This much, however, he would now state, that any measure which would be introduced by Government must be limited in its duration and provisional in its nature, as it was intended merely as an experiment. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN presented a petition from a solicitor practising in the Courts in Ireland, against the Bill brought in by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and praying that the profession might remain under its present control. Colonel WOOD presented a petition from the guardians of the poor of Brecon, praying that all property under 51. a year be rated on the owner, and not on the occupier. HEAD MONEY. The HoN. MEMBER gave notice that after Easter he would call the attention of the House to the system of paying head-money for captured slaves, and that he would move an address to the Crown relative thereto. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the Ward of Farringdon-Without, praying for a reform in the Corporation of the City of London. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Sir F. TRENCH said that it was his intention to-morrow to renew the motion of which he had given notice, for the re vival of the Committee for the consideration of the Houses of Parliament, and at the same time he should call the attention of the House to the efforts made for its lighting, with a view to extract an expression of the opinion of the House upon the subject. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. BLACKSTONE moved that the Order of the Day for the attendance of Mr. Metcalfe, the Printer of the Morn ing Chronicle, and J. S. Poulter, Esq., at the Bar of the House, be read. Mr. MIL DMA Y rose to object to the proceeding. He objected most strongly, and would never lend his sanction to the House entering into a contest with an individual. He would not give as a reason for so doing, that he thought the House came very poorly out of every contest of that sort, inasmuch as on all such occasions the public invariably sympathised with the individual rather than with the mass who were contesting with him.—( Hear, hear.) It was not on that ground he objected to Mr. Poulter being called in. It was upon a much stronger ground than that. He had known Mr. Poulter for a great many years. —( Hear, hear, from the Tory benches, and loud cheers from the Ministerial.) Mr. Poulter was as sincere, straight-forward, manly, firm and determined an individual as any of his (Mr. Mildmay's) acquaintance, and be knew well enough that when Mr. Poulter brought a serious charge against any one he was a very likely man to persevere. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.") In what position would the House then stand ? Mr. Poulter would appear at the bar; he would endeavour to show the House that he had just ground for the accusation he made, and what would be the result of that? Mr. Poulter's ex parte statement would go forth to the public, without the public having the opportunity of judg ing whether it was true or not, and without any Com mittee of the House having the power to disprove the statement. He would therefore beg leave to suggest (and he should not have bad taste enough to perse vere if he found the feeling of the House against him), whether it would not be better to postpone this question until they could have the evidence that had been given before the Committee laid before the House, so that they might be able to judge whether the charge was correct or not. —( Hear.) Otherwise in what position would the house stand? Supposing, upon the reading of the evidence, the fact should be so, they must then come to the conclu sion that what Mr. Poulter had stated was perfectly cor rect.—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh" from the Tories. ) It might be so—he did not say it would be so, but it was pos sible it might be so.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) Mr. Poulter had brought a charge of corruption against cer tain Hon. Members of that House, and that charge might or might not be true. But supposing it should be proved to be true, how would the House then stand?— (Hear, hear.) Why, after sending Mr. Poulter to Newgate upon the assumption that his charge was false, they might find upon the evidence forthcoming that that charge was true.— ( Hear, hear.) If he found the feeling of the House was in favour of his proposition, he should certainly press it to a divi sion—( Hear, hear)—and he should therefore now move as an amendment that the further consideration of this question be postponed till the 23th of April, by which time, no doubt ; the evidence would be printed. Mr. BLACK STONE really could not believe that the Hon. Member had read the letter in question. It was not the mere fact of the expression of an opinion by Mr. Poulter that the Committee had decided erroneously, but he had most directly and distinctly charged them with corrupt and dis• honest motives.--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition Benches.) Suppose for a moment that he allowed the motion of the Hon. Member to eass—what condition would the Members of the Committee be placed in ? It would perhaps be a month before they dare chew their faces in public with such an im putation as this hanging over them.--( Hear, bear.) But what would the House itself say if they assented to the motion? Would it not be tacitly admitting the charge that had been made against them, and afford ground for further imputations. It was on these grounds that he felt himself called upon to oppose the motion, for it appeared to him that it would place the Committee in a most painful and embarrassing situation. Mr. O'C ONNELL said that the Honourable Mem ber had given the very worst possible reason for op posing the motion of his Honourable Friend. The Ho nourable Member had asked the House what would be the situation of the Committee if they agreed to the postponement. What indeed would be their situation if they shrunk from al lowing the evidence to be laid before the House ?—( Loud cries of " hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.) It had been admitted by one of the Members of the Committee that there had been what he called " an honest perversion of judgment" in this case.—( Pear, hear, and laughter.) Now if it went abroad to the public that the Committee resisted the produc tion of the evidence, would they call it honest ?—( Hear, hear.) No, they would not; for there was a perversion of justice, and a grievous injury done to Mr. Poulter on the facts, as stated even by the Hon. Member himself. He was not so unparliamen tary as to attribute motives to any Hon. Member—( Laughter)-- but what were the facts? 31 votes were tendered to the Re vising Barrister—no objection was taken to them at the time, and they were placed by him on the list. On whose evidence were those votes struck off by the Committee ? On the evi dence of this very officer himself. Now after this, was there a single individual in that House who would get up and say that if Mr. Poulter was a Tory, the Committee would have urseated him ?—( Hear, hear.) These things ought to be fairly and honestly avowed. There was not the slightest doubt that if Mr. Poulter had been a Tory he would still be a Member of that House.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that if the House took any further steps in this matter, they would be placing themselves in a most ludricrous posi tion. What was to become of their consistency ? Did not his Honourable Friend the Member for Cork,— did not his Honourable Friend the Member for Fal kirk—did not the Member for Sligo tell them the same thing to their faces, and that too with impunity. They all said it in the face of the House, and even so humble an individual as himself said it—( Laughter)—and was repri manded. But after that did he shrink from repeating it No : he repeated it after the reprimand, and not a man rose to move that he should be censured. And because Mr. Poulter had been put out by the grossest injustice ever done a human being—(Cheers)—they shrink from allowing the evidence to be compared with the deci sion.—(" No," from the Opposition.) They did—they wanted to punish Mr. Poulter first, and try him after wards.—( Laughter and cheers.) That was Tory justice. —( Continued cheers.) And then, according to the state ments made, the grossest treating had been practised, public houses had been opened, and drunkenness was going on from hour to hour, the agent of the sitting Member paying for that treating. And that party, which was so att ac h e d t o religion, and had such a horror of everything irreligious, that they would not allow a loaf of bread to be baked on a Sabbath day, gave countenance to these abominable practices.—(Cheers.) He would not say these were the facts, but they were stated in this House to be so. If they were facts, what would the House do by proceeding criminally against Mr. Poulter? They were here parties to the cause, and they sought to criminate a man in the absence of evidence, which might justify him to the public.—( Loud cheers. ) Until these tribunals were altered they would never receive the respect of the public. Proceeding vindic tively against Mr. Poulter would not do their characters any good, and would show a disposition on the part of the House which the public would say had actuated the Com mittee. The manly way was to have the evidence printed, and then let them enter into the subject ; but let them not, in the absence of that evidence, convict Mr. Poulter now and try him after wards. —( Cheers. ) • Mr. MIL DMA Y explained. Sir R. INGL IS said the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, with the ingenuity of a special pleader, worthy the lore of place—(Laughter)—had taken advantage of an ex pression of the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, who had called the decision an honest perversion of judgment. The Honourable Member with singular ingenuity omitted the word " honest, " and substituted the word " justice " for " judgment."—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He said on the confession of an Honourable Member of that Commit tee, that they were guilty of a perversion of justice ; whereas the Honourable Member for Roxburghshire said " an honest perversion of judgment." He thought the Honourable Member for Wallingford had led therm into an error in entering on the merits of the question on the last occasion. Even admitting—which he ( Sir R. Inglis) did not—the truth of the allegations of the Hon. Member for Dublin, nothing could justify the expressions of Mr. Poulter. Tho Hon. Member for Dublin had forgotten, when he characterized the Members on his (Sir Robert Inglis's) side of the House, as the promoters of Sunday legislation—as desirous of preventing a loot from being baked on a Sabbath—was not aware that his friend, Mr. Poulter, was equally the supporter of such legislation. But the House was wasting time on this subject._( Ironical cries of " Hear" on the Ministerial Benches.) The real question was, whether the letter before the House was a breach of privilege. If it was, it ought to be taken into consideration. The merits of the decision to which the Committee had comp were not a fair subject for consideration in that House.— ( Hear.) The House had never taken upon itself to re-judge the decisions of Election Committees. Undoubtedly the greatest security for the present system was publicity._( Hear. ) And it was quite right therefore that publicity should THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1838 be given to the proceedings of these Committees—( Hear) — nor should it be forgotten that the Hon. Chairman of the Shaftesbury Coma ittee (Mr. Blackstone) had himself been the first to move for the printing of the evidence which had been taken before that Committee. But, on the whole, he ( Sir R. Inglis) thought the original motion ought to be agreed to by the House. Mr. HUME doubted whether the House ought to enter tain either of the motions which were now before them. He had unsuccessfully endeavoured to put an end to the proceedings of the House regarding his Hon. Friend, the Member for Dub lin, for which proceedings, he had no doubt, the House was now heartily sorry.—( Hear, hear.)--He thought the motion now brought forward was an interference with the liberty of the press.—( Ironical cheers from the Opposition. )—lt was an attempt to controul public opinion and the moral feeling of the people with regard to the proceedings of Committees of this House. If the House were to bring Mr. Poulter before them, they were bound in justice to bring every one before them who characterised their proceedings as infamous and corrupt, which was the case with many of the daily papers. Why should the Committees of this House have a greater protection than the House itself ?—( Hear. ) He wished to ask whether the House was to be more careful of proceedings before a portion of the House to those that took place before the whole, and whether they wished to stop the Press from questioning the proceedings in that House ? He objected to the adoption of the course proposed, unless the House laid down a rule that no observa tion derogatory to the character of the Huuse should be made in any newspaper at all. He thought the observations of Mr. Poulter ought to be taken on the very same footing as any other observations in a newspaper—(Hear)—and the House ought not to interfere. He thought there would be no use in calling Mr. Poulter to the bar, for if they did, and then asked him what he meant by corruption, he would say that he meant the bias of party, and the House hxd had it from the Honourable Member for Ripon himself that there was a party bias in that House. He ( Mr. Hume) thought the House ought to put an end to the subject by no t enter. taining the question at all. He had seen the House charac terised in much stronger language than Mr. Poulter had used, and on that ground he would support the motion ; but, at the same time, he felt bound to say, that the wise course would be for the House to reject the motion by postponing it for 6 mouths. Mr. HARVEY said, that if it really was true as some gentlemen seemed to be anxious to impress upon the House, that the House collectively and individually were so grossly ' corrupt as some seemed fond to impute, it was astonishing to him how gentlemen should be so anxious to have the honor of ascat in that House. —( Cheers.) He could not but think that the amendment proposed was premature, and unjust to Mr. Poul ter. It was his opinion that that Gentleman should appear at the bar, and if he should then say it was impossible for him to support the charge he had put forth until the evidence was brought forward, that might be a suggestion that the House would recognise, but they ought to hear it from Mr. Poulter.—(Cheers.) With the exception of what had been stated by some Honourable Members, who were on the Committee, the House was totally ignorant of what had taken place before the Committtee.—(Loud cheers.) If Mr. Poulter said he would be' prepared to justify both in letter and spirit, the charges contained its his letter to his late constituents, but that he could cot do so until the evidence had been printed, that would be an appeal so reasonable and just, that no one would for a moment think of refusing the time. When he ( Mr. H.) read the letter, he thought the charge was made calmly and Mr. Poulter might say that he had made the charges, they were not founded upon evidence which was received, but upon something which had been rejected, that he founded them. At all events, Mr. Poulter ought to appear at the Bar, both in justice to himself and the House. It was im possible that the House sought to exercise a vindictive revenge upon Mr. Poulter ; it would therefore be unjust in them not to have Mr. l'oulter at the bar, in order that he might have an opportunity of telling them what were the grounds of his im putation. Upon his ( Mr. Harvey) reading the letter, he did not think that Mr. Poulter would not feel obliged to any of his friends who tried to excuse him on the ground of a heated temper. He apprehended that it was a de liberate imputation —that it was the settled sentiments of his mind. It was, therefore, in justice to himself that he ought to appear at the Bar—it was necessary that they shouldhat thought od e t ? a l a r i et o f m r r o wo m aar himself o.oatt s shse l curor whether s npsvroiersyte conveyed that h f ht than ta e o nr tr meant h auepmtimere rnet Gentlemen.o pch political t r ei charge politic ca( .wclrhoor corrup tion, H uspa. l ?t upon the Committee should wish to hear from Mr. Poulter himself on what grounds he had made his imputations, and in what way he wished them to be understood. He doubted whe ther any one who had ever lost a seat, or any who had failed to obtain one through a Committee, did not think that there was great political corruption and great mental imbecility on the part of the Committee. He for one distinctly denied that it was impossible for a Committee to deal fairly and de cide according to the justice of the case. He had been sitting on a Committee all that morning hearing counsel and witnesses, and he declared solemnly that his sole object was to arrive at a just conclusion upon the evidence which was adduced.—( Loud cheers.) If there was any ground for the imputations which were daily thrown out against Committees, he conceived that seats in Parliament would soon be plenty enough, for Gentlemen would be anxious to take some office or another in order to escape from such company.—Cheers and laughter.) Colonel DAVIES was inclined to adhere to the amend ment. What was the use of calling in Mr. Poulter, when they had the simple mode of ascertaining whether the charge was correct or not, by examining the evidence it self ? The Honourable Gentleman opposite had stated, that if this matter were to be postponed, lie and his colleagues would have to be under the imputation for a consi derable time ; but how would the Hon. Gentleman escape that imputation by having Mr. Poulter called to the Bar? Did the Honourable Gentleman suppose that Mr. Poulter at the Bar would unsay all that he had said—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—or that Mr. Poulter at the Bar would retract the gross charges he had made through the public Press. - :- (Hear, hear, hear ) The most that could be said against it Was, that the letter itself was a most intemperate letter. Gen tlemen opposite, who appeared to be so tender of their characters, were perhaps not aware that a letter had . beel , i , inserted in the Times of Saturday, signed " Robert Pigott, a Member of that House.—( Loud cheers.) Li that letter was the following passage I take this opportunity of dis avowing all share in such a transaction, worthy only of our present Government, and being a record of the grossest out rage ever perpetrated within the walls of the House of Corn. mons." That letter was signed Robert Pigott.—( Cheers. ) He did not know whether Mr. Robert Pigott was present or not, and whether he avowed or disavowed that letter. —( Crl ' 8 of " Question, question," from the Tories.) What he meant to state was this, that if Mr. Poulter was to be visited with any punishment, a portion of that punishment ought to fall upon the Hon. Member for Bridgenorth.—( Cheers. ) Mr. W YNN cou'd not agree with the Honourable Gen tleman who char icterised this proceeding as vindictive. It was not vindictive but protective.—( Hear, from the Tories. ) What would any Gentleman in that House do, if he were charged individually with gross corruption? He would either appeal to the House, or he would answer the charge by saying that the gentleman who made it was a liar and a calumniator. .If any individual should publi s h a l e tt er c h ar ging a judge or jury with corrupt and wilful p urjury would they think of exa mining the trial ? Th e y wou'd say " You are protectedin the execution of the duty which the law calls upon you to discharge; we will extend that protection to you immediately, because you acted in the discharge of that duty--the law has vested a dis cretion in you, and we will give you credit to believe that you acted hoteely." There might be a different case. ?UP pose a charge of personal corruption to be brought against a man, it might be a ground for proceeding against him , but that was not a ground for a general charge against a Com mittee. The unsuccessful party in every suit was inclined to attribute his failure to the ignorance or corruption of the Court which decided against him. The House could not in justice to the individual Members who were thus charged conic to any other resolution than that ofcalling Mr. Poulter to the bar. Mr. T. DUNCONIBE did not know the use of the House making an order the other day unless it was to be acted upon. —( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) It appeared to him that by ordering Mr. Poulter to the Bar, they would express no opinion as to a breach of privilege having been commit ted—that would entirely depend on the truth or falsehood of his charge.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) He therefore hoped his Hon. Friend would withdraw his amendment, and allow Mr. Poulter to be called to the bar, and asked whether he avowed himself to be the author of it ; and, next, whether he stood by and maintained the allegations therein ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not avoid saying a few words with respect to the question before the House ; and he felt it the more necessary to interpose at this stage of the dis cussion, because he confessed he could not agree in the senti ments which had fallen from Hon. Gentlemen at that or the opposite side of the House. He owned that it did appear to him that this matter ought not to be entered into at ali. He was of opinion, that where the allegation was ge neral, and had reference merely to the political conduct and opinion of a party, it would be wiser and more dignified of this House if they refused to interfere at all in the matter. The Right Honourable Gentleman had put a question to him as to whether, if this was a matter of personal imputation, he should not wish to vindicate himself. If it were of the nature described by the Right Honourable Gentleman he undoubtedly should ; but he thought there was a clear distinction between an imputation cast on the con duct of an individual, and on that pursued by a particular party. If it had been said that an individual had received a sum of money for voting in a particular way, he should certainly think it right to have the individual making that imputation called to the bar of the House, and punished as the House might think fit ; but he thought it quite a different thing, when the political license which they all exercised was carried beyond the usual bounds, and the conduct which was called by some unjustifiable was designated by others as corrupt. He thought that such a matter as this had better be left to the ge neral decision of the public, than be made the subject of reprimand or punishment by this House. There was a clear distinction between the character of this House and the functions exercised by the Judges. It was right that those exercising judicial functions should endeavour to main tain the respect due to the high authority which was de puted ; but when a popular body like the House of Com mons selected in this manner a particular individual for making a general allegation respecting the character of the House, or of a portion of it, he feared that a vote which condemned that individual either to prison, or to any other punishment involving penalty or disgrace, would be re garded by the public generally as a punishment which was dictated more by passion than necessity or a regard to the character of that House. He owned he would be confirmed in that opinion if the only cases to be selected were those of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin and Mr. Poultcr. In a paper which he (Lord J. Russell) held in his hand, there was a letter appealing to the people of England from a de cision of that House, which the letter characterized as the most outrageous ever perpetrated within the walls of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He knew nothing of that decision, though it was called an act of the Go vernment, but it had been debated for some time on a ques tion relating to the controverted elections,—and as he was willing to give the Shaftesbury Election Committee every credit for having acted according to their consciences in the decisions to which they had come, he thought that House entitled to the same credit for the integrity of their decisions. —(Hear.) Was it to be said that because certain parties were fond of such proceedings—( Loud cheers)—Mr. Poulter was to be visited with their punishment, but that Mr. Pigott was not to be noticed ? ( Cheers, and cries of " Hear.") If so it would go forth to the public that while one side of that House could not bear its proceedings to be animadver ted upon, that upon the other side of the House any degree of libel and of calumny might be cast by those to whom either the religion or the politics of that side of the House were obnoxious.—( Loud cheers.) He could not vote for the amendment, which seemed to imply that when the evidence of the Shaftesbury Committee was brought before the House, the House would enter into the question, for of that question he did not think the House could constitute itself a judge.—(" Hear" and loud cheers.) He protested, and ever would protest, against the vengeance of the House being inflicted upon any outbreak of irritation or language which was the result of excited feeling. He thought the better course for the House to pursue was to leave it to the public at large to decide whether the acts of that House or the allegations of its calumniators were best deserving of approval. No severity of punishment could ever obtain the respect of the public for the Commons of England, who, if they did not rest upon the confidence of the people were nothing whatever, and who, if they had that confidence, need not fear any calumnies, any libels, however unfounded.—( Cheers.) Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. If he understood the conclusion to which the Noble Lord had arrived, it was this—that it should be competent for any individual, with perfect propriety, to prefer any accusation whatever against any Members of that House upon whom judicial duties had devolved.—( Cheers.) No matter how scan dalous the insult might be,—no matter how aggravated the charge of corruption,—still the Noble Lord thought that the protection of that House ought to be public confidence, and his opinion is that the House ought to give notice that all Members of the House of Commons might proceed in their course with perfect impunity, for the House would be exempted from all those forms which gave protection to individuals. With respect to any other case that the noble Lord might prefer, he should deal withlt when it was presented. He had now one case before it, and with that it was his intention at present to deal. Here were gentlemen who by law were compelled to serve. The House admitted no excuse, and also told them that unless they performed the duties which devolved upon them, it would commit them to prison. If you do not perform the judicial functions that may devolve upon you, you must be committed to prison, and if you do, then the doctrine of the Noble Lord was, that they were to be permitted to receive every insult. If such were the doctrine of the House of Commons, if such be the doctrine it intended to maintain, then he for one would advise any indi vidual to bring the question before the House. He would ad vise them when called upon to serve to say that they would not. (Great cheering from the Tories.) He would advise them to ask the House this question— If you place me in this judi cial situation, and give me no protection, will you commit me to the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms if I refuse to serve? —( Cheers.) He ( Sir Robert Peel) would ask whether it was justice to compel an individual to perform duties in the performance of which he was subject to insult from which he had ro protection whatever 1—( Hear, bear.) The charge was made by Mr. Poulter against the Committee. H e said " that the petition, which under other circum stances would have been declared frivolous and vexa tious, had been entertained by the most corrupt majority which had ever disgraced the administration of justice." There was not oven an allegation of an error of judgment— they were " the most corrupt majority which had ever dis graced the administration ofjustice." The Noble Lord said, that if an individual Member were charged with corruption, the House would protect him. Upon what principle would he defend the exception ?—(Loud cheers.) How was the House bound to protect the private individual ? If that person was corrupt, the shield of the House thrown round him would not make his character more pure. The Judicial Bench, in order to its usefulness, required the protec tion of the public oonfidence; but would ally one for a moment refuse to afford them also protection for unfounded contume lies?—( Hear.) The attack was not upon the party, as the Noble Lord had found it convenient to state. Mr. Poulter distinctly avowed that he made no attack upon the party, for he said that he knew that a large portion of what was called the Tory party looked at such proceedings with disapprobation. ( Hear, hear.) It was clear that it was not a party at tack : it must, therefore, be a personal one—the Mem bers composing the majority of that Committee were as well known as if they had been named individually. The six or seven gentlemen composing that majority were pointed at as if individually, and therefore why should the Noble Lord re fuse them protection ? He was aware of the disagreeable ness of all such discussions—(Hear)—but he felt bound to take the same course upon that occasion as he had felt it his duty to take in the case of the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin. He considered that it would be exceedingly unsafe for the House to lay down a rule in accord ance with the opinions expressed by the Noble Lord. He did say they were bound to give protection to a Committee who had a compulsory duty imposed on them. What course the House of Commons would take when they heard what Mr. Poulter had to state he could not tell; but he could not sit dow❑ and assent to the proposition that hereafter every man might attack the House of Commons at his pleasure with every species of corruption and criminality, without being subjected to any punishment.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. WA RBUR TON wished the House to take into consideration, that the breach of privilege here com plained of was not a breach of privilege in which there was any direct interference with the business of the House itself—it was merely a constructive breach of privilege.—( Hear, hear.) The whole argument of the Right Hon. Baronet was founded on this, that there was no other mode of protecting the dignity of the Com mittee but by the House itself interfering.—( Hear.) He begged to ask whether a prosecution for libel on the part of any Member of that Committee would not lie against Mr. Poulter.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If a similar act were done by Mr. Poulter against the Court of King's Bench, that Court would not call before it Mr. Poulter, and com mit him at once to Newgatc, but would institute a prose cution for libel.—( Hear. hear.) Mr. M IL DM A Y had only brought forward his amendment in justice to both parties, but he now begged leave to withdraw it. Mr. WARBURTON then moved the previous question, whereupon Mr. NI IL DMA Y said he would withdraw the amendment. —( Hear, hear, hear. ) Sir CI - ARLES G. GREY rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide." He contended that Election Committees were constituted by Statute, and not by any mere act of the House, which accordingly had no authority to review their acts. Lord HE NNIK ER - Could not allow the question to go to a division without formally and loudly protesting against the observation of the Honourable Member for Dublin, that if the party unseated by the Committee on the Shaftesbury election petition, had been a Tory, a different decision would have been come to. He did not regret a single aot, a single ob servation, or a single proceeding of his in that Committee, and he trusted that the House would bear him out by its deci sion.—( Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL, notwithstanding the great anger of the Noble Lord, did not regret either a single observation he had made, a single action he had done, or a single proceed ing in which he had taken a part connected with the conduct of that Committee. The Noble Lord wished to have the mi nutes of evidence laid on the table of the House, but he also wished that Mr. Poulter should be first called to the bar, and dealt with accordingly. Did the Noble Lord wish to punish Mr. Poulter first and try him afterwards? All his excellent anger then was thrown away, unless he wished to reverse the the measure of justice in this case, as he (NIT. O'Connell) be lieved the Committee did in the other.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet opposite had facetiously said that this was a case of peculiar hardship, inasmuch as the parties attacked were compelled to serve; but he (Mr. O'Connell) would ask whether every one of those voluntary victims did not get a circular ticket from the Carlton Club, requiring their presence at the ballot, as two or three seats were in question ? It might be said that his (Mr. O'Con nell's) side of the House did the same thing. They did ; but they, at least, had not the hypocrisy to deny it.—(Laughter.) And these compulsory volunteers complained of being obliged to bear attacks upon their proceedings. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not, indeed, know, but that the Noble Lord opposite, who was so indignant on the subject, had himself received one of those very circulars, telling that there were three seats in danger, and that his presence was needful to put the Speaker into the Chair. To decide the question at issue then he (Mr. O'Connell) asserted would be for the House to make a mockery of justice. The facts of the case should be first made apparent before judgment was pronounced on it. Mr. Paulter had lost his seat through " the honest perversion of judgment"—he (Mr. O'Connell) would say—(A laugh)—of the majority of the Committee, and he spoke under the in fluence of a sore feeling. Would the Right Hon. Baronet do otherwise if he had been put out of his seat by the same means ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) thought the l i House had better adopt the amendment than enter into a con test with an individual—nothing was ever gained by such a course of proceeding. Sir E. SUGDEN—lnstead of inviting Mr. Poulter to the course proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, he should sincerely advise him to admit that the letter in question was written in a moment of anger, to deprecate the wrath of the House, and to throw himself on its mercy for f o rgiveness. It was said, why not bring this case as one of libel before a Court of justice ? But that question was easily answered ; for if any one only looked for a moment at the tenor and the expressions of Mr. Poulter's letter he would find that no allusion was made to any particular section of the Committee, so no action would lie on the face of the do cument. After a few words from Lord J. Russell, Mr. Blackstone, and Mr. Villiers, A message from the Lords was announced, requiring the attendance of Mr. F. Baring before a Committee of their Lordships' House, which permission was accordingly granted. Mr. WARBURTON then said he would not divide the House on his amendment. The amendment was accordingly negatived, and the motion for calling Mr. Poulter to the bar of the House agreed to without a division. Mr. Poulter was then brought to the bar in custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms. The SPEAKER—Mr. Poulter, I have to acquaint you that a complaint has been made to this House of a letter, signed " J. S. Poulter," dated the Temple, April the 4th, and addressed to " the Electors of the borough of Shaftes bury," containing matter highly reflecting on the Committee of this House appointed by this House to try the merits of the petition against the Shaftesbury election. That letter, pub lished in the Morning Chronicle newspaper of Friday, the 6th of April, contains the following paragraphs : " An unprincipled combination, to which I have been for some time exposed, has been but too successful. A petition which, under ordinary circumstances, and with a fair Commit tee, might probably have been found frivolous and vexatious, has, by the effect of mere chance, been enabled to call to its assistance the services of the most corrupt majority of a Com mittee that ever degraded the administration of justice, and the name of the Commons of England. The consequence has been, that I have ceased to be your representative in Parlia ment. The printing of the evidence by order of the House will, I trust, exhibit to you and to the world the full particu lars of this most flagrant and wicked case. " The conduct of a revising barrister of the name of Graves, in neither giving the overseer of Stower Provost an entire day for bringing in his list, nor adjourning (as it was his duty to have done) in such a manner as to prevent even the most tri vial and technical objection being raised, was the first cause of the monstrous injustice which has been inflicted upon rne. The Committee having decided this point in my favour after an elaborate and unanswerable argument, found.sd upon reason, principle, and justice, as well as precedent, subsequently, on the application of the prisoner's Counsel, re-opened the matter, and ultimately reversed their own solemn decision. The revising barrister, a man of long standing at the bar, and of toe same politics with the majority of the Committee, whose business it was to know the law and to act upon it, had not the grace to inform the Committee, according to the fact, that, having departed hastily, and before the conclusion of the day, he felt it his duty to return, at the request of the over seer, to perform the Ministerial act of revising a list that was totally unobjected to, but declared that he knew nothing, and could say nothing, of the law, and begged the Com mittee to instruct him. The majority of the Committee, whose ignorance upon the subject was second only to their corruption, were thus enabled to put their decision upon the shoulders of this gentleman. " The next main feature was this—An overseer, a partisan of my adversary, had caused by his sole evidence four votes to be struck off from my poll on the ground of non-pay leant of rates. On the fifth case his oath was contradicted by two re ceipts produced in his own hand writing; and I will venture to say ti.at no Judge who ever sat in Westminster Hall would have permitted a case to go to the jury for their consideration upon the evidence of a man so exposed and contradicted. My Counsel of course applied for the restoration of the votes. The Committee refused to allow it. In this way my majority was destroyed, and my seat as completely filched from me as ever a purse was stolen from a person on the common high way. We then proved a case of treating so extensive and de e isive that if any one should desire to state the sort of evi dence by which such an allegation should be sustained, he might be content to take as an example what was substantiated before the Committee. Ample opportunity was afforded for establishing this part of the case by the notorious fact that un limited treating was the only mode an entire stranger could adopt of standing against one who did, and does at this mo ment, possess the affections and opinions of a large majority of your constituency. This proof was also treated with the same contempt as the rest of my just and righteous cause. " I was unwilling to witness in person these disgraceful scenes ; but I am assured that all the proceedings of a section of the Committee were accompanied by such external and con vincing signs of partiality to my opponent, and prejudice against myself, as to excite the disgust of even casual specta tors Do not suppose that the high-minded men who consti tute a large portion of what is called the Tory party can ap prove of these things ? I have reason to know that they regard such criminal acts with the greatest disapprobation. It does seem to me that I have been made the victim of a degree of iniquity, compared with which the irregular acts of all former Committees may fairly claim to stand excused. " I never sat but upon one election Committee, and on that occasion, under the strongest conviction of the truth, I did all that a Judge properly could to deprive of his seat a Member who invariably eat and voted on the same side of the House as myself; and I must say that had I been sitting either as Chair man or as an ordinary member of an exclusively Whig Com mittee upon the case of any one of those gentlemen who have acted so ruthless a part towards me, he would have received at my hands the very fullest measure of law and justice which the honest and uncorrupted mind can conceive. " In conclusion I beg to offer my heartfelt thanks for the uniform kindness and indulgence I have received at your hands during the five years I have sat in Parliament as your Representative, and I earnestly hope that my conduct during that period has not deprived me of the friendship and esteem of any one of those gentlemen who have upon all occasions so kindly supported me. In the belief that I have not forfeited the confidence reposed in me, I shall, upon the first opportu nity that arises, seek to regain the honour of which I have so unjustifiably been deprived." I have now to ask you whether you are the Mr. Poulter who signed that letter ?—whether that letter is your composition ? —and whether it was published by your desire and with your knowledge? Mr. Poulter answered—That the letter was written by me —it is entirely mine ; and it was published by my sole and exclusive authority, given for that purpose to the Morning Chronicle newspaper. A pause of a minute then ensued. Mr. Poulter then said, if the House would permit him, he wished ;to make some observations on his case.—( Hear, hear.) He would ask the House as a matter of favour as well as of justice not to deal with it in the ordinary and usual man ner of dealing with matters of the kind, and pray them to grant that he might be ordered to attend at that bar at a future day, by which time the whole evidence on which it rested could be printed and laid upon their table. His constituents believed that there had been formed a conspiracy either to frighten him from the field or to ruin him by vexatious opposi tion ; and eircums'‘ances had proved that they were right. A singular circumstance had come to his knowledge in confirma tion of the fact. The Hon. Member for Shaftesbury had said to a friend—and he (Mr. Poulter) could prove it—that but for the constitution of the Committee he would have abandoned the case on the first day. —( Sensation.) The Committee had come to its conclusion against him, not by one, two, or three general votes, involving principles of constitutional law, but by four or five discordant decisions, involving glaring and destruc tive contradictions and discrepancies, so that he had felt himself bound to expose the proceeding as he had done in his address to his constituents, to whom he had candidly stated the strong grounds of his case, and the very peculiar manner in which they had been taken front him.—(The Hon. Gentleman here re-stated the allegations contained in the second and third paragraphs of his address to the electors of Shaftesbury. ) The witnesses who were brought forward against him had not denied that the most extensive treating was carried on within the Statute; for, though they swore it was carried on after the teste of the writ, they could not deny that it had been prac tised up to that moment, for the three or four previous days. Certainly nobody ventured to accuse him of treating. He begged to observe that he did not volunteer a personal attack on the Committee ; on the contrary, he attributed to some of them the possession of a high sense of justice. Had be, in the first place, entertained any injurious suspicions respecting the integrity of his Committee, he might have had the talented Member for Buckingham on it ; ho might have enjoyed the valuable assistance and enlightened aid of the Noble Lord the Member for Buckinghamshire—(Laughter)—and, in ad dition, might have secured the impartial and innocent mind of the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford.—(Laughter.) The Committee certainly began right, but they went very wrong ere they concluded. In conclusion, he begged to say that if honourable and impartial men—and especially the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and those with whom he acted—found him guilty, after patiently perus ing the evidence, he should submit to any penalty, and utter any apology the House might prescribe ; otherwise he should still persevere in the opinion expressed in his letter. He should, however, feel no hesitation in stating his conviction that when justice flew from earth to resume her place in heaven she did not leave the last traces of her steps in the Shaftesbury Committee.—( Laughter. ) Mr. BL ACK STONE felt it his duty to move that the ex pressions contained in the said letter of Mr. Poulter, contain ing a charge of corruption against the members of a Com mittee of this House, in the discharge of their duty, is a false and scandalous libel. After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. BLACKSTONE, Lord STANLEY said that the question was not whether an Hon. Gentleman against whom a Committee of the House had decided should be permitted to impugn the want of know ledge, erroneous judgment, and indiscretion displayed by that Committee, but whether he is entitled with impunity to charge its members with improper motives, in short, with wilful per jury and scandalous corruption ?—( Hear.) Before he sup ported the motion of the Hon. Member for Wallingford ho should be glad that the House could take into its consideration the suggestion on which the gentleman at the bar seemed in the first part of his address almost prepared to act. Mr. Poultcr's language, before he entered into the merits of his case, was so nearly approaching to the wishes of the House, that he anticipated little difficulty in arriving at the exact ad mission which they had a right to expect from him.—(Hear.) Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that when Mr. Poulter appeals to his political adversaries, and prays their attention to the cir cumstances of the evidence on which he founds his charges he (Mr. O'Brien) for one could not be a party to condemning him unheard. Neither ought the House to he a party to such a decision without knowing further. To afford it this oppor tunity he would now move the adjournment of the debate to this day month. After a few words from Mr. D. W. Harvey, Mr. Villiers, Lord Ebrington, Col. Wood, Mr. Mildmay, and Mr. Elliott, Mr. C. W YNN was anxious that Mr. Poulter should havo an opportunity of saying at the bar that he accused the com mittee of an erroneous decision and not of corrupt motives. Mr. BLACKSTONE was willing to postpone his resolu tion, to have Mr. Poulter again called to the bar, and allowed this opportunity of explaining. After an observation from Lord J. RUSSELL, Mr. Poulter was again called to the bar. The SPEAKER was commanded by the House to put to him (Mr. Poulter) some questions arising out of the statement which he had made to the House, and he thought he should but perform his duty by acquainting him with what appeared to be the sense of the House upon the proceedings that had taken place. The question which he had to put to him was, if he were disposed to retract the charge of personal cor ruption in the conduct which the Committee had pursued, and the language that his seat had been filched from him ? Mr. Poulter said that he must continue to repeat that his seat had been taken from him through political rr Itivcs ; but he did not impute to the members of the Committ ee any cor ruption as to money, or any motive so base, but that Iris seat had been taken from him for causes not founded in justice, Mr. Poulter having withdrawn, Mr. BLACKSTONE said that, in behalf of the Comm' tee, he must declare that the retractation of Mr. Poulter ram not satisfactory, and that he must press his resolution to ale division. Mr. LANGDALE said that the charge made by Mr Poulter was made every day in the Newspapers against Con mittees and the House itself. " Fraser's Magazine" had ac cused all Whig Committees of injustice, and that they tile" served the deep disgust of all honourable men. After an observation from Mr. MILDMAY, Mr. HALL said that this was not an insulated case. The " Monthly Law Magazine" had accused the MexborougYa Committee, of which he formed one, of being the most cor rupt tribunal that ever existed in the worst country in th& vilest age.—( A laugh.) Why, he asked, was not this case, brought forward ? Lord WORSLEY said that the Standard had used strong language in speaking of Mr. C. Buller's Bill oa con troverted elections. Mr. BAINES thought Mr. Poulter had already sufficiently • retracted the charge of corrupt motives. Lord J. RUSSELL wished Mr. Poulter's answer to be : read by the short-hand writer. The short-hand writer here read Mr. Poulter's answer given above to the question put to him by the Speaker. Sir E. SUG DEN said that the observation he had made to political bias was merely that it was difficult to get rid of such bias in a Committee. This was different from ascribing political motives. Mr. O'CONNELL could see no difference between politi cal bias and political motives. After a few words from Mr. BLACKSTONE in exp!a nation, Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the motion of the Hon. Gentleman were persisted in, he should feel it to be his duty to move, as an amendment, the Order of the Day for the thir reading of the Slavery Abolition Act Amendment Bill. (Hear.) Sir A. DALRYMPLE said that as far as he (Sir A., Dalrymple), understood the observations of Mr. Poulter the evening, it appeared to him that he had only withdrawn hi words so far as they related to the charge of "pecuniary" cor ruption.—( Hear.) Mr. RICE thought that the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had not correctly understood what Mr. Poulter had stated, for that gentleman had said that he did not mean to i m pute " base or pecuniary" corruption to the Committee—(Hear)--- but that he attributed the loss of his seat to " political me tives."—( Hear.) He much wished that the House should understand the real facts of the case before they came to a division. No man could for a moment think that Mr. Poulter ever meant to make a charge of pecuniary corruption against the Committee.—( Hear.) Sir A. DALRYMPLE considered that, according to his construction of the English language the charge of corruption still remained.—( Hear. ) Colonel SIBTHORP had no doubt that if Mr. Poulter had been better advised—( Hear)—and left to his own feeling% in this matter, that he would have pursued that course which he (Col. Sibthorp) must say would have been a most honour able one on his part.—(Hear.) Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—With respect to the immediate question, as it regards Mr. Poulter himself, I can only say that I have been actuated by a most anxious desire to devise some means of bringing this matter to a termination without the necessity of proceeding to extremities.—(Cheers.) I certainly could not hear the appeal made at the bar by A gentleman smarting under a severe disappointment and ss sense of injustice, and witness the tone and temper of the speech in which it was made, without feeling the great est reluctance to visit him with severity.—(Hear, hear.) If I could even forget his conduct when in the House , as a political opponent, his conduct here to-night would induce me to take the most lenient course within my power' But, I am not to be diverted by personal considerations front that which I consider the course of my duty and of justice.- -- (Hear, hear.) I look to the expressions used in the letter itself. I look to the first charge made against the Committee by Mr. Poulter, and I must own that I there find, not only language of a very strong nature, but an accusation of cor ruption broadly alleged. The Noble Lord (John Russell) says that he considers that letter intemperate and inexcusable ; but I very much wish the Noble Lord had said so the other night, instead of making use of expressions with regard to it which, in my opinion, were eminently calculated to throes difficulties in the way of a settlement of this question. terms of that letter are such, that I think no language made use of by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on a re cent occasion was more offensive in its nature, inasmuch as & charge made against individual Members of a Committee is necessarily more offensive than a general charge against El"' tion Committees. And now comes the general question...abet: Mr. Poulter made such a retractation as the House has reasonust expect? I, for one, most sincerely wish that he had, and rather confess that, were I in Mr. Poulter's situation, I w i ° g u h l t d i ni r pos .n e undergo such a penalty as the House of Commons In than consent to have concessions attributed to reality, I had not made. I doubt very much whether M Poulter would like the House to say to him " You have come very near to an apology—we shall go a little farther —a li.tl nearer to the wind—and say that you have apologised." --- (Hear.) This I cannot but consider would be unfair towards Mr. Poulter. I do, then, thiAlc. that the charge of corruption still remains—for though Mr. Poulter disclaims the charge of pecuniary corruption, yet he says that there still remained political bias in the Committee which induced them to take me which, _l e the course which they did against him, and that that c ourse was not a just one---(Hear, hear)—so that there we have a clear imputation against the Committee of judicial corruption. Me. S. O'BRIEN then withdrew his amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and moved as an amend ment to the motion that the House pass to the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Slavery Act Amendment Bill.--(Hear, and cries of " Divide.) Mr. PRA ED rose amidst noise which rendered him inau dible, to call the attention of the House to the fact that there were two resolutions before it, one of which was the imputa tion aeainst the Committee.—(The other was perfectly a uto owing to the impatience of the House to proceed in to the Division.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the 1 100511 divided, when the nambers were— Ayes Noes Majority against Lord J. Russell's Amendment The amendment having been negatived, the original motion was then put, when e An HON. MEMBER (Mr. O'Connell, we believe) me eel, eat as an amendment, the adjournment of the debate until that day week. On our re-admission to the gallery we found Mr. HAWES on his legs seconding the amendment. Mr. Sergeant WILDE could not see how it could be con sidered a breach of privilege that a Committee not sitting iun der the authority of the House should be accused of ac tin from political motives.—( Hear, hear.) About twenty y ear s ago a case of murder was tried at the Old Bailey, wh e ,l l l, o libel was published against Mr. Justice Le Blanc. . f , parties, however, were proceeded against by criminal • dictment—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—and tried and eons victcd. In that case the Court itself never thought of ill terd o fering. Now, a doubt had been expr esse d by an H on ourabi be Gentleman opposite whether the offending party in tall present instance was liable to a c r i m i na l p rosecu t i on. But el who recollected th e cas e o f th e Ki ng v . Willi am s, fora Iw e on the Clergy of Durham, could not for a single moment Oa tertain any such doubt.--(Hear.) The House was not cal le d upon to interfere, either on genera l pr i nc i p l e , or w ith reg ar to the circumstances of the particular case.—( Hear.) It, It; peered to him that M r . P ou lt er h a d not b een f a i r ly oc i l - f , with. Mr. Poulter had ma d e use o f two different words. L" - , had begun by stating th a t h e cons id ere d he had lost his gent owing to political " motives," and afterwards he had attri buted such loss to politi ca l " causes. " —(Hear, bear.) 146 came back to the bar of the House, with a motive, as it ‘ 4 4 P: peered, to do all that was expected of' him, and he ( Sergeant Wilde) would put it to the House, whether, after he had said that he considered he had lost his seat from political motives, they were disposed to interfere further in the M a !: ter ? (Hear.) He had spent the greater part of his life It Westminster Hall, and he had constantly heard the questil asked, " What is the consequ e n ce o f thi s or th a t C o mmittee ? It was universally conceded that political bias operated up° ° ' and produced, the decisions of Committees of that Hou s „ e i This was a fact which no one deni e d ; b u t then it was I. ', r every man who said this would imput e corru pt m otives totn d, members of those tribunals. Knowing Mr. P o ulter as he d' having gone the same circuit with him, he did not hesitate tic, say that if Mr. Poulter had a friend at his elbow w hen he wrote the letter in question, to point ou t the cons tructio , which the language that he empl o y e d wou ld b ear , he was too much of a gentleman, in mind and feeling, ever to have C° ",, descended to express himself as h e h a d done towards the gg t tlemen who composed this Committee.--( Hear, hear.) ' l ie what was the situation in which th e H ouse wa s now plac e Why, they were discussing a matt e r relating to a / tribuna l the was at a discount.—( Hear, hear.) The House had come te a resolution that Mr. Poulter had published a false and 5e7 1 1 . , dalons libel ; but could they do this in the face of what N ajd Poulter had said ? Now, what was it that Mr. Poulter say? Why, ho did not say th a t h e could prove by " ho nesses, or by the declarations of an y of the gentlemen w oe sat on that Committee, that th e i r d ec i s i on was bad or just ; no, but he said that he would show the House that tt o ! was in a situation to make out hi s case f rom the notes t aken of the evidence produced before the Committee.—( Hear. There was scarcely a M em b er o f t h e H ouse w ho really k ll what the evidence c on t a i ne d, and therefore all that M r. Peue . t ter asked of them w as , " H ear , b e f ore y ou decide." Withou, in knowing what it was that made so strong an impression Mr. Poulter's mind—without having ascertained whether the view lie took of his own case he judged partially or imPa o r n tially—it was clear that no honourable man ought to the question.---( Hear, hear.) He trusted that the 4 would under s t an d w h at h a d f a ll en from his Learned r I v 7 a , in the milder sense, and that what he meant to impute • that he had lost his seat from political and not from actual justice. It was clear that Mr. Poulter could not have al n l to impute pecuniary corruption to the Committee ; meant to say was that political considerations had against him and that the evidence adduced ought to ba had arrived, This was what he (Mr. Sergeant \Vl f i r d to a very different conclusion from that at which the Co . M:,l it X, pool lieved his Learned Friend intended to say, that if N . ou ,ht, ter gave this explanation as to his meaning the House b c ially ded for a as the division was 120 to 124. Could it be conten as (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) thought, to receive it, (We cl ing ? What respectability could these Comrnittee_eng,Tcracni single moment that this result did not proceed from psart_s:nt such a course, or could it be thought by the Hon. itpevreatleedd 124 .....